If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Hi,
I have just purchased a full copy of win xp pro, and have a home network of two computers. Can I use this one copy for both machines ?? I read somewhere that for a small or home network it is ok to use the same copy of windows, I dont want to go throught the install to find it wont activate and I have to start again Thanks in advance |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Nope! You can not do that, you need two copies.
-- -------- Paul -------- www.paulsxp.com www.paulsxp.com/forums "Rob" wrote in message ... Hi, I have just purchased a full copy of win xp pro, and have a home network of two computers. Can I use this one copy for both machines ?? I read somewhere that for a small or home network it is ok to use the same copy of windows, I dont want to go throught the install to find it wont activate and I have to start again Thanks in advance |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Rob;
What you read is wrong. As with all consumer Microsoft OSs, one license, one computer. If you want Windows XP on both computers, you need to buy a second copy. It is not relevant that you are home or business, small or large network etc. You will not be able to activate the second installation. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] An easier way to read newsgroup messages: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...oups/setup.asp Please respond to newsgroup only for everyone's benefit. "Rob" wrote in message ... Hi, I have just purchased a full copy of win xp pro, and have a home network of two computers. Can I use this one copy for both machines ?? I read somewhere that for a small or home network it is ok to use the same copy of windows, I dont want to go throught the install to find it wont activate and I have to start again Thanks in advance |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Greetings --
As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems, it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and copyright laws, if not technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on which it is installed. The only way in which WinXP licensing differs from that of earlier versions of Windows is that Microsoft has finally added a copy protection and anti-theft mechanism, Product Activation, to prevent (or at least make more difficult) the sort of multiple installations you're asking about. Bruce Chambers -- Help us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once. -- RAH "Rob" wrote in message ... Hi, I have just purchased a full copy of win xp pro, and have a home network of two computers. Can I use this one copy for both machines ?? I read somewhere that for a small or home network it is ok to use the same copy of windows, I dont want to go throught the install to find it wont activate and I have to start again Thanks in advance |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
You heard wrong!
"Rob" wrote in message ... Hi, I have just purchased a full copy of win xp pro, and have a home network of two computers. Can I use this one copy for both machines ?? I read somewhere that for a small or home network it is ok to use the same copy of windows, I dont want to go throught the install to find it wont activate and I have to start again Thanks in advance |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Hi Rob,
Thank you for the posting. As you indicated you want to install the same copy of Windows XP Pro on two computers of your home network. To answer your question. This is not recommended. To do so, you need to get "Microsoft Windows XP Additional License" Home Edition $89.10 Professional Edition $189 Under the Windows XP End-User License Agreement (EULA), you may install one licensed copy of Windows XP on one computer. If you need to install Windows XP on more than one computer that you own, you may qualify to purchase up to three (3) discounted additional licenses in one of the following ways. Purchase Online ============== To provide a better product experience for our customers and immediate access to additional licenses, Microsoft has partnered with participating online retailers in the U.S. to allow you to purchase and use a Windows XP license from the convenience of your home or small business. Here¡¯s how: 1. Enter either your current Windows XP Product ID or Product Key in the boxes below, and then click Submit. 2. You¡¯ll learn whether you qualify for an additional license as well as which license you qualify for--the full version or version upgrade. 3. Purchase your Windows XP Additional License Product Key for an additional license directly from a Microsoft-approved reseller. A Product Key is an electronic number that "unlocks" Windows XP and allows it to run. 4. After you purchase a Product Key, the key will be displayed on your screen and you'll receive a confirmation e-mail message that also contains the key Purchase at a Retail Store ======================= Microsoft has offered retailers in the U.S. and Canada the ability to sell additional licenses at a discount. If you own a licensed copy of Windows XP, and want to buy an additional license in packaged form, check with your local retailer. Purchase via Telephone ====================== Microsoft also offers an additional license service to customers who have legally installed Windows XP and have an immediate need for an additional license due to work stoppage or other unforeseen circumstance. In the U.S. and Canada, call the Windows Product Activation Call Center at 888-571-2048 for more information on how you can take advantage of this service. Hope the above information and suggestion helps and answers your question. If anything is unclear, please let me know. Sincerely, Cherry Qian MCSE2000, MCSA2000, MCDBA2000 Microsoft Partner Online Support Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security ================================================== == When responding to posts, please Reply to Group via your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit from your issue. ================================================== == This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties, and confers no rights. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
-----Original Message----- Greetings -- As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems, it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and copyright laws, if not technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on which it is installed. The only way in which WinXP licensing differs from that of earlier versions of Windows is that Microsoft has finally added a copy protection and anti- theft mechanism, Product Activation, to prevent (or at least make more difficult) the sort of multiple installations you're asking about. http://tinyurl.com/hhjj 218 times, but you still can't find one US Copyright Law that prohibits an individual from installing software on more than one computer! ROFL! Do ya' think someone should get in touch with your NG service provider to complain about your repeatedly sending the same bogus message over & over again, what is in essence, nothing but SPAM?! "23. What is system abuse? Abuse of the system includes, but is not limited to, exceeding the download limit on your account, spamming, newsgroup flooding, and unauthorized posting of copyrighted material. Abuse of the system may result in action being taken against your account." - http://www.supernews.com/faq.html#23 -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Hi
Bruce is correct in his posting. Can you provide proof that anyone = *can* install any MS OS onto more than one PC? Has MS stipulated that = any of their OSes *can* be installed onto more than one PC? Will http://tinyurl.com/hhjj =20 218 times, but you still can't find one US Copyright Law=20 that prohibits an individual from installing software on=20 more than one computer! ROFL! =20 Do ya' think someone should get in touch with your NG=20 service provider to complain about your repeatedly sending=20 the same bogus message over & over again, what is in=20 essence, nothing but SPAM?! =20 "23. What is system abuse? Abuse of the system includes,=20 but is not limited to, exceeding the download limit on=20 your account, spamming, newsgroup flooding, and=20 unauthorized posting of copyrighted material. Abuse of the=20 system may result in action being taken against your=20 account." - http://www.supernews.com/faq.html#23 =20 "kurttrail" wrote in = message ... =20 -----Original Message----- Greetings -- As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft=20 operating systems, it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA=20 and copyright laws, if not technically) to purchase one WinXP license=20 for each computer on which it is installed. The only way in which=20 WinXP licensing differs from that of earlier versions of=20 Windows is that Microsoft has finally added a copy protection and anti- theft mechanism, Product Activation, to prevent (or at least=20 make more difficult) the sort of multiple installations you're=20 asking about. =20 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 25/07/2003 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
-----Original Message----- Hi Bruce is correct in his posting. Can you provide proof that anyone *can* install any MS OS onto more than one PC? Has MS stipulated that any of their OSes *can* be installed onto more than one PC? "to be in compliance with both the EULA and copyright laws" - Bruce Chambers There is not one US copyright law that a person wouldn't be "in compliance with" by installing software on more than one computer. I stand behind the words I write, unlike Bruce! Circuit Judge EASTERBROOK for the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit wrote: "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable)." - http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html How is MS EULA unconscionable? "This software is licensed not sold." This sentence is the basis for MS's claim of turning a shrinkwrap license, into a software license. Unfortunately with retail software, it is sold, and there is a receipt to prove it. The receipt doesn't say anything about a software license, just the NAME of the SOFTWARE. And the previous owner of that copy of software, the retail store owner, wasn't a licensee of that copy of software either, but the owner! And guess what? The retail store owner was sold that copy by the previous owner, the wholesaler. So there were at least 2 owners of that copy of software between MS and the guy who is sold the software. Now MS wants people to agree that reality didn't happen at least three times since MS originally SOLD the copy of software. LOL! Denying reality happened three times! Sounds unconscionable to me! People own every single retail product they buy, and there is no legal precedent that says anything to the contrary! That is the legal status quo at the present! Oh, and one more thing, your TV came with a shrinkwrap license too! Would you believe it if the TV's shrinkwrap license said that TV wasn't sold?! What law does MS's EULA violate? Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese using MS's own definitions: Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of Copyright Owners: Computer programs (a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of Software. - It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software to make another installation provided: (1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making use of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that it is used in no other manner, or "(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful" Installation - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=adaptation made - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=created necessary - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=essential making use - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=utilize together with - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=conjunction a previously unknown - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?refid=1861582871 or - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=or What words mean does matter! Only a total buffoon would even try to argue otherwise! MS has yet to prove they have the right to enforce their One Computer nonsense in the privacy of any individual's home in a real court of law. Why? Because a majority of the Supreme Court agreed that "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a"fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html Until there is some definitive legal precedent that clears this all up, one way or another, shouldn't each individual decide for themselves what they can and can not do with the retail software that was legally SOLD to them by the previous owner of that software?! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
You sure continue to stretch it don't you.
Read the EULA. You can return any Microsoft product sold in North America within 30 days. If you do not agree, return it. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] An easier way to read newsgroup messages: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...oups/setup.asp http://dts-l.org/index.html "kurttrail" wrote in message ... -----Original Message----- Hi Bruce is correct in his posting. Can you provide proof that anyone *can* install any MS OS onto more than one PC? Has MS stipulated that any of their OSes *can* be installed onto more than one PC? "to be in compliance with both the EULA and copyright laws" - Bruce Chambers There is not one US copyright law that a person wouldn't be "in compliance with" by installing software on more than one computer. I stand behind the words I write, unlike Bruce! Circuit Judge EASTERBROOK for the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit wrote: "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable)." - http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html How is MS EULA unconscionable? "This software is licensed not sold." This sentence is the basis for MS's claim of turning a shrinkwrap license, into a software license. Unfortunately with retail software, it is sold, and there is a receipt to prove it. The receipt doesn't say anything about a software license, just the NAME of the SOFTWARE. And the previous owner of that copy of software, the retail store owner, wasn't a licensee of that copy of software either, but the owner! And guess what? The retail store owner was sold that copy by the previous owner, the wholesaler. So there were at least 2 owners of that copy of software between MS and the guy who is sold the software. Now MS wants people to agree that reality didn't happen at least three times since MS originally SOLD the copy of software. LOL! Denying reality happened three times! Sounds unconscionable to me! People own every single retail product they buy, and there is no legal precedent that says anything to the contrary! That is the legal status quo at the present! Oh, and one more thing, your TV came with a shrinkwrap license too! Would you believe it if the TV's shrinkwrap license said that TV wasn't sold?! What law does MS's EULA violate? Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese using MS's own definitions: Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of Copyright Owners: Computer programs (a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of Software. - It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software to make another installation provided: (1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making use of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that it is used in no other manner, or "(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful" Installation - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=adaptation made - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=created necessary - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=essential making use - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=utilize together with - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=conjunction a previously unknown - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?refid=1861582871 or - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=or What words mean does matter! Only a total buffoon would even try to argue otherwise! MS has yet to prove they have the right to enforce their One Computer nonsense in the privacy of any individual's home in a real court of law. Why? Because a majority of the Supreme Court agreed that "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a"fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html Until there is some definitive legal precedent that clears this all up, one way or another, shouldn't each individual decide for themselves what they can and can not do with the retail software that was legally SOLD to them by the previous owner of that software?! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
You sure continue to stretch it don't you. Read the EULA. I have, that's how I know it's based on a lie, that the software isn't sold. You can return any Microsoft product sold in North America within 30 days. If you do not agree, return it. Not for free! You have to pay for shipping! But what does any of this have to do with what I wrote, or Bruce Chambers oft-repeated but bogus claim that one wouldn't be in compliance with "COPYRIGHT LAWS" for installing software on more than one computer! If he would just say that one would not be in compliance with the EULA, that would be the truth, though that still wouldn't mean that a court would actually enforce it on individuals, if MS ever grew the balls to actually enforce their EULA on individuals by legal means thru the court system, but that's Contract Law. Bruce, or anyone else, has never found one US copyright law that an individual would not be in compliance with when installing the same copy of software on more than one computer! Or do you condone his repeatedly posting 218 times that which nobody has been able to prove, because there are no existing US copyright laws that prohibits an individual from installing the same copy of software on more than one computer?! Or is that how you MS-MVP's earn your free MSDN subscriptions by misrepresenting the truth for MS?! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" "kurttrail" wrote in message ... -----Original Message----- Hi Bruce is correct in his posting. Can you provide proof that anyone *can* install any MS OS onto more than one PC? Has MS stipulated that any of their OSes *can* be installed onto more than one PC? "to be in compliance with both the EULA and copyright laws" - Bruce Chambers There is not one US copyright law that a person wouldn't be "in compliance with" by installing software on more than one computer. I stand behind the words I write, unlike Bruce! Circuit Judge EASTERBROOK for the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit wrote: "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable)." - http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html How is MS EULA unconscionable? "This software is licensed not sold." This sentence is the basis for MS's claim of turning a shrinkwrap license, into a software license. Unfortunately with retail software, it is sold, and there is a receipt to prove it. The receipt doesn't say anything about a software license, just the NAME of the SOFTWARE. And the previous owner of that copy of software, the retail store owner, wasn't a licensee of that copy of software either, but the owner! And guess what? The retail store owner was sold that copy by the previous owner, the wholesaler. So there were at least 2 owners of that copy of software between MS and the guy who is sold the software. Now MS wants people to agree that reality didn't happen at least three times since MS originally SOLD the copy of software. LOL! Denying reality happened three times! Sounds unconscionable to me! People own every single retail product they buy, and there is no legal precedent that says anything to the contrary! That is the legal status quo at the present! Oh, and one more thing, your TV came with a shrinkwrap license too! Would you believe it if the TV's shrinkwrap license said that TV wasn't sold?! What law does MS's EULA violate? Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese using MS's own definitions: Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of Copyright Owners: Computer programs (a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of Software. - It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software to make another installation provided: (1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making use of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that it is used in no other manner, or "(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful" Installation - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=adaptation made - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=created necessary - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=essential making use - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=utilize together with - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=conjunction a previously unknown - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?refid=1861582871 or - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=or What words mean does matter! Only a total buffoon would even try to argue otherwise! MS has yet to prove they have the right to enforce their One Computer nonsense in the privacy of any individual's home in a real court of law. Why? Because a majority of the Supreme Court agreed that "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a"fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html Until there is some definitive legal precedent that clears this all up, one way or another, shouldn't each individual decide for themselves what they can and can not do with the retail software that was legally SOLD to them by the previous owner of that software?! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Your signature explains your attitude.
"Peace"... you do not appear to believe in it "Self-anointed Moderator"...Absolutely meaningless The rest...describes your true beliefs and intentions No response necessary unless you like to talk to yourself and have the last word (little doubt you do) -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] An easier way to read newsgroup messages: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...oups/setup.asp http://dts-l.org/index.html "kurttrail" wrote in message ... SNIPPED Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" "kurttrail" wrote in message ... -----Original Message----- Hi Bruce is correct in his posting. Can you provide proof that anyone *can* install any MS OS onto more than one PC? Has MS stipulated that any of their OSes *can* be installed onto more than one PC? "to be in compliance with both the EULA and copyright laws" - Bruce Chambers There is not one US copyright law that a person wouldn't be "in compliance with" by installing software on more than one computer. I stand behind the words I write, unlike Bruce! Circuit Judge EASTERBROOK for the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit wrote: "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable)." - http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html How is MS EULA unconscionable? "This software is licensed not sold." This sentence is the basis for MS's claim of turning a shrinkwrap license, into a software license. Unfortunately with retail software, it is sold, and there is a receipt to prove it. The receipt doesn't say anything about a software license, just the NAME of the SOFTWARE. And the previous owner of that copy of software, the retail store owner, wasn't a licensee of that copy of software either, but the owner! And guess what? The retail store owner was sold that copy by the previous owner, the wholesaler. So there were at least 2 owners of that copy of software between MS and the guy who is sold the software. Now MS wants people to agree that reality didn't happen at least three times since MS originally SOLD the copy of software. LOL! Denying reality happened three times! Sounds unconscionable to me! People own every single retail product they buy, and there is no legal precedent that says anything to the contrary! That is the legal status quo at the present! Oh, and one more thing, your TV came with a shrinkwrap license too! Would you believe it if the TV's shrinkwrap license said that TV wasn't sold?! What law does MS's EULA violate? Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese using MS's own definitions: Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of Copyright Owners: Computer programs (a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of Software. - It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software to make another installation provided: (1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making use of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that it is used in no other manner, or "(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful" Installation - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=adaptation made - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=created necessary - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=essential making use - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=utilize together with - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=conjunction a previously unknown - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?refid=1861582871 or - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...nary/Dictionar yResults.aspx?search=or What words mean does matter! Only a total buffoon would even try to argue otherwise! MS has yet to prove they have the right to enforce their One Computer nonsense in the privacy of any individual's home in a real court of law. Why? Because a majority of the Supreme Court agreed that "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a"fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html Until there is some definitive legal precedent that clears this all up, one way or another, shouldn't each individual decide for themselves what they can and can not do with the retail software that was legally SOLD to them by the previous owner of that software?! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote in message = ... Your signature explains your attitude. "Peace"... you do not appear to believe in it "Self-anointed Moderator"...Absolutely meaningless =20 The rest...describes your true beliefs and intentions =20 No response necessary unless you like to talk to yourself and have the last word (little doubt you do) You're, INUT, a pussy, and afraid to answer what he ask you! To actaully = have another MVP say that another may be wrong, is somehow against the = rules of maintaining lies, IMHO. Also, are you afraid to criticise MS = for thier terms as stated, or what Bruce states isn't in the EULA? = Bruce, states that it violates "Copyright Laws" in effect of one using = the same copy of software on two separate devices, that are stated in = the EULA to be only used on one. Yet, nowhere in any local, state, or US = written laws does it say anything covering this kind of purported (and = wrongly termed) use as a "copyright" violation. It can certainly be a = civil offense in breaking an agreement, but not a legal violation, as = Bruce makes it seem criminal. Altogether now! I state, to maintain my MSDN subscription of free = giftware from MS, not to tell the truth about MS, because I like my free = stuff, and ass kissing MS, and each other, as MVPs is ethical! |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Ted;
Your name calling shows your true character just as the other poster showed his true self. People resort to name calling when they lack the ability to support their position and need all the help they can get to support their position. Come back when you have points that do not include your silly name calling. Perhaps then you may be taken seriously. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] An easier way to read newsgroup messages: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...oups/setup.asp http://dts-l.org/index.html "Ted" """""'""""""" wrote in message s.com... You're, INUT, a pussy, and afraid to answer what he ask you! To actaully have another MVP say that another may be wrong, is somehow against the rules of maintaining lies, IMHO. Also, are you afraid to criticise MS for thier terms as stated, or what Bruce states isn't in the EULA? Bruce, states that it violates "Copyright Laws" in effect of one using the same copy of software on two separate devices, that are stated in the EULA to be only used on one. Yet, nowhere in any local, state, or US written laws does it say anything covering this kind of purported (and wrongly termed) use as a "copyright" violation. It can certainly be a civil offense in breaking an agreement, but not a legal violation, as Bruce makes it seem criminal. Altogether now! I state, to maintain my MSDN subscription of free giftware from MS, not to tell the truth about MS, because I like my free stuff, and ass kissing MS, and each other, as MVPs is ethical! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
Your signature explains your attitude. "Peace"... Peace - Inner contentment; serenity - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=peace you do not appear to believe in it I wish that all have the Inner contentment I have found! "Self-anointed Moderator"...Absolutely meaningless Self-deprecating Humor! The rest...describes your true beliefs and intentions Like "Trustworthy Computing" isn't an oxymoron? MS wouldn't have an average of about a patch a week after SP1, if Windows XP were truely trustworthy! SP1 came out long after MS announce their "Trustworthy Computing" initiative, not to mention the patch they had to rework, nor that DX9 in now in a "b" version! And to me, putting an OS with PA on my machine is analogous to putting my computer into a MS concentration camp! No response necessary unless you like to talk to yourself and have the last word (little doubt you do) Or I want to challenge you to actually answer my post rather than attacking to me in order to avoid answering my legitimate questions! Is that something they teach in MS-MVP school, how to not reply to questions you don't want to answer, by attacking the questioner? -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|